Why are society's restrictions on men's appearance never mentioned?

[Cattleprod]

I've seen and participated in a number of discussions over the past year or so, on mumsnet and real life, which have focussed on stereotypical expectations of womens and girls appearance based on gender. The overwhelming sea of pink in girls clothes shops, shaving/waxing various body parts, 'princess' type slogans, cosmetic surgery, length of skirts, high heels, styles of underwear, that sort of thing.

The point always comes up that it is unfair that so much value and judgement is placed on a woman's physical appearance, and of course it is terrible that anybody should be judged on physical or aesthetic aspects that they haven't chosen themselves, or have had forced on them by situation or society.

But it got me thinking, that although a lot of the unwritten expectations related to appearance, and the perhaps more sinister ones (eg. she was wearing a short skirt so was asking to be molested) relate to women, far more of the overt expectations, those that invite comment and even punishment, that I have come across have been applied to men and boys.

From the rule at my school that a boy's hair must not reach his collar, to the expectation in many offices that a man must wear a suit and tie, have short hair and be clean shaven, to my little boy being laughed at when I put a plain clip in his hair to keep it out of his eyes. Men just aren't as free to look different from 'the norm'. Any man that ventures out in a skirt, or lipstick, high heels, a pashmina etc. is likely to be met with incredulous stares and unpleasant comments, and in extreme cases, violence. Yet these are things that we as women can wear freely, safe in the knowledge that we can also choose to wear traditional mens clothing largely without derogotary comments (as Sandi Toksvig and many other women often do).

So, aside from obviously wanting to stamp out appearance-based prejudice that still exists as mentioned above, does there not seem to be the space or inclination for us as women to celebrate the fact that we do generally have more freedom than men to dress as we wish? I know there are boundaries set by religion, occupation, local society etc., but it is always the negative aspects of the spectrum of female appearance choices that are discussed, never the positive.

See, it's this kind of thinking that I don't quite get - "as he'd be down to one shirt and a pair of trousers before it would even cross his mind". Can you explain? Not having a go, Blackduck, just trying to understand why you feel that you have to stop it getting to him only having one shirt and one pair of kecks. What would happen if he ended up with only the clothes he stood up in?

I get what you are saying about leaving it to him, but I guess there's a bit of me that just needs to deal with it. I know he will do it if I leave it (and has done - he recently did a stint in a resturant and needed trousers, shirts, ties and he went and sorted). I also don't spend an inordinate amount of time doing it either - I will literally be passing through MS menswear and go 'that will fit and do' and thats it. But I guess, for me, the more important point is just how little he buys into it. He'd rather do almost anything than go clothes shopping.

actually 9 times out of 10 I'd rather do anything else than go clothes shopping....

I think men spend a lot of money on clothes where I am but not really work clothes. The men need the nike air max 90s (about £100 for a pair of trainers?!!), fred perry shirts (£50 now!!), nike/adidas trackies etc. Also havent read No Logo but I think everyone knows it is just marketing but loads of people still wouldnt be able to go out in no make trainers. Not the younger generations anyway.

There are loads of clothes that are marketed to men that are a complete rip off, just the same as women. Most men here are slaves to fashion and wouldnt be seen dead going out without all their brands on.

I don't have any troubles getting DH to buy clothes - he quite likes buying clothes. He has good taste as well, mostly - what fucks me right off is that he refuses to change his decent/new clothes when he's doing some mucky job and therefore they're trashed within days of being bought. It's just so bloody wrong! He has realised now - after wearing the t-shirt he bought on our honeymoon (that he really liked) to cut down the monstera plant in our garden - the bastard thing's sap stains like walnut and it does NOT come out - so the t-shirt is ruined. That actually upset him so now he kind of sees my point - but he still only has possibly 2 undamaged t-shirts and 1 pair of unstained shorts because of his lack of care for his stuff.

I realise this is largely tangential - just wanted to offer him up as an example of a contradictory bloke who likes clothes shopping but fails to look after his clothes.

Another point - I know its historical accuracy may be in doubt since I got the info from G. Heyer's novels but - apparently the menservants in the 18th-19thC weren't averse to using "buckram wadding" and sawdust to remedy the deficiencies in their master's physique - it's not new.

I prefer buying DH's clothes to buying my own. I am a curvy girl (14 with small waist, big boobs and hips) and buying things like jeans are a pain in the arse. he, on the other hand, is over 6' with broad shoulders and long legs and is a dream to dress. Clothes shopping is far more fun when you can guarantee the clothes will look good.

Plus DH works longer hours than I do and I am less anti-social, so don;t mind the crowds in shops.

Seth - I know people had hobbies 50 years ago, but these hobbies were restricted to the home or local area and were not considered particularly significant. - so despite being a great cook/ dress maker/ painter etc, you were still defined by your occupation ie; you were a miner or a miners wife.
It's still true today - if I was arrested for murder the press would say ' Carmina Burana - ( insert occupation ) from London, was arrested today ' etc etc - they wouldn't list my hobbies ( thank god )

More likely to be "Mother arrested for murder", unless you work as a teacher or nurse.

OTOH at least for upper class women 100, or 150, or 200 years ago, the hobbies would be the defining feature. Probably that's true even 60 years ago, isn't it? As in, 'Mrs Williams, an avid flower-arranger and regular organizer of the WI Christmas lunch ....'.

Not sure whose point that supports, mind!

It would never have occurred to me that I should by buying DH's clothes, encouraging him to buy his own clothes or that it was any of my concern in any way. It never occurred to me that other women had any involvement in what their husband's wore.

Same for me Milly - I think I bought DP a nice shirt once as a present (though that got promptly taken back and exchanged IIRC) - but would never have occurred to me either that I should be buying his everyday clothes, monitoring what clothes he has, 'getting him to buy clothes' etc. Though I did know women do this (my mother and MIL are both do for their husbands) I assumed it was a 'previous generation' thing.

I would find it a very weird and controlling situation if DP was buying all my clothes, deciding what I was 'allowed' to wear, checking up on what I have in my wardrobe etc, and it would be surely just as weird if I was to do it to him.

There's a big thread about it

Sorry, I seem to have derailed this thread. Just thought it was an interesting point in relation to the title of this thread.

I think occupation is a peculiarly English (and possibly American) obsession - pretty sure I have read that somewhere. That we, as a nation, will almost aways ask 'what do you do?' (i.e. what's your job?) Before any other question, but not sure how far that is tied into class issues.

MillyR - pretty sure I got it from my mum! (and her excuse would be my dad spent most of his life in uniform and away so never had time! - which is pretty true)

Must point out I don't decide what he can wear (but I would like him to wear something :) )

But that is part of the way women are restricted. Men aren't allowed to break the rules of dress and appearance. Women are. Because women's primary purpose is to make a big deal out of her appearance - make an effort, try new things, look pretty/beautiful/sexy (delete as appropriate). Men are more serious beings, taken more seriously and seeing themselves more seriously so they must not* break the rules becuase by doing so they downgrade men's position and authority. Women are encouraged to faff about with their looks because they aren't important.

It's all part of the same old same old.

sorry Carmina, I'm still not finding that argument awfully convincing. It just doesn't mesh with what I know to be true from personal experience as well as what I have read.
Have you read South Riding (set in Yorkshire in the 1930s)? Huggins in that definitely takes his identity from being a lay preacher and Alderman Beddows from her public service not her being a mother of 4 or auctioneer's wife.

anyway it's a side issue....

it's the difference between a description and a definition - 'She is a doctor' is a description, not a definition, IMO.

Ormirian; You could put a negative spin on anything if you tried hard enough - what you say about women being unimportant so we're encouraged to 'Faff about' is nonsense. Females are traditionally the child carers and home makers - males provide. Therefore females have developed a flair for design and creativity born out of our (traditional) role in life. On a personal note - Our home is decorated entirely to my taste - my dc were/are dressed in the way I wanted them dressed - my dh was too busy providing for us. My clothing and personal appearance is an extension of my home - I take my creativity out onto the street - it's powerful - not 'faffing about' - I actually feel a little sorry that you are so negative about being female.

One of dhs colleague was told to shave his beard off by the company they worked for. He did it as redundancys were looming. I still don't see why he should have had to though. surely having a beard is in fact the default state just as unshaved legs and unpolished nails are. It wasn't a H&S matter either.

"Therefore females have developed a flair for design and creativity born out of our (traditional) role in life.."
I'm doomed then :)

No Seth I haven't read it - but I will now.

The recent census asked me 3 key questions - my occupation, my religion, and if my partner was male or female - I don't think hobbies were mentioned ?

Men have to put their tops back on in the summer to go in a supermarket. Which I think is a shite rule, considering it's the only place I ever go on my own.

Carmina, I don't think men traditionally are providers and women homemakers. There was a bit of a thing for it in the mid twentieth century, but it isn't really the usual situation.

I do appreciate being female. I just don't feel a need to particularly embrace femininity, nor do I find masculinity at all appealing.

No, maybe it's not the usual thing, but every playgroup I've ever visited ( over a 20 year period ) has been 99% female - when I go to pick my son up from school today the playground will consist mainly of women. I'm sure an awful lot of women work these days, but they still provide the majority of childcare and I can't see that ever changing significantly.

plus there was a report in the telegraph recently ( last week ? ) about how feminism is holding back working class men ( I'll try and dig it out ) as a mother of two sons I'm not overly happy when I read reports like this - I believe in equality for all - no one should benefit at the expense of another. Feminism, whilst being a social advancement for the middle-classes, has had a negative effect on working class males and the social mobility of the poorer classes - feminism is not a win win situation.

Yes, women do generally pick their children up from school. That is not evidence that their fathers are out providing them.

Most poor people are women, so the idea that feminism is in opposition to social mobility is laughable. You cannot separate poverty from the situation of women. Poorer women are in a far better situation now than they were 50 years ago. If your man walks out on you now and you have no money, that is not going to be used as a reason to take your children into care.